The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the City of Bowling Green and its employees in a case involving a trip and fall incident. The court's decision, delivered on September 25, 2026, determined that the city was protected from liability under the state's Recreational Use Statute. This ruling affects individuals who may seek compensation for injuries sustained on public property while engaging in recreational activities.
The case, titled Pamela Bailey v. City of Bowling Green, Kentucky (docket number 2025-CA-1282), arose from an incident that occurred on September 8, 2023. Pamela Bailey, the appellant, claimed she suffered serious injuries after tripping on an uneven sidewalk while walking to a free concert at Circus Square Park. Bailey alleged that her injuries included a fractured upper arm and nerve damage, leading to significant medical expenses and loss of income.
Bailey filed her initial complaint against the City of Bowling Green on January 30, 2024, asserting that the city was negligent in maintaining the sidewalk. She later amended her complaint to include Andy Souza and Greg Meredith, both of whom were identified as public works directors. The city denied the allegations and raised several defenses, including sovereign immunity and the protections offered under the Recreational Use Statute.
The Recreational Use Statute, Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 411.190, provides that landowners, including local governments, owe no duty of care to individuals who enter their property for recreational purposes without charge. The statute aims to encourage landowners to make their land available for public recreational use by limiting their liability.
In its ruling, the court found that Bailey's activities at the time of her fall fell under the protections of the Recreational Use Statute. The court stated, "KRS 411.190 shields the City and its Employees from liability and that no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute." Judge Eckerle, along with Judges Caldwell and Taylor, affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the city.
The court noted that Bailey was using the sidewalk to attend a free concert, which constituted a recreational purpose as defined by the statute. Furthermore, the court rejected Bailey's argument that the city should be held liable due to the commercial aspects of the concert, emphasizing that the statute's definition of "charge" did not apply since no admission fee was required.
Bailey also contended that the city had acted willfully or maliciously by failing to repair the sidewalk, which she argued should negate the protections of the Recreational Use Statute. However, the court concluded that her claims reflected passive negligence rather than willful misconduct. The court explained that the city’s inaction in repairing the sidewalk did not rise to the level of indifference required to establish liability under KRS 411.190(6).
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving injuries on public property. It reinforces the protections afforded to local governments under the Recreational Use Statute, particularly in cases where individuals are injured while engaging in recreational activities. The decision may deter similar lawsuits against local governments by clarifying the extent of their liability.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Bailey will appeal the ruling. The court's decision sets a precedent regarding the application of the Recreational Use Statute, which could influence similar cases in Kentucky. The legal landscape surrounding recreational use and liability may continue to evolve as more cases are brought before the courts.